Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The End of War

We are watching the world change before our eyes, at home and abroad. The question is still out on what the end results will be. We see two basic thought patterns in each of these debates, and in any political clash in the world. One believes in individual freedom, the other government power over individuals. Everything can be put into one of those categories.

George W. Bush believed, and I agree with him, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan allowing the people to be free to determine their own destinies would cause freedom to spread across all of the Middle East as others saw it and wanted some for themselves. What we see with the people protesting like a wildfire there was a hope, but now we don't know who will be there to help them. Our government no longer believes in that dream of freedom, but embraces government solutions for all things. The Obama administration is no friend of anyone trying to gain individual liberty here or abroad.

Twenty years ago I was running with some highly successful international businessmen and women. As they continued to open businesses in the old Eastern bloc countries as freedom spread across them after Reagan's example opened the door for them, the conversation was about how eventually there would be no wars. The idea was that when the people and the countries had financial interest in the success of people all over the world, no one would be willing to allow the disruption of business to allow their governments to go to war. Wars most often happen with people who feel they have no positive ties.

About a decade ago when Indian and Pakistan governments were rattling war swords, and the world was watching to see if war would break out, I got a call from a good friend of mine in India. He is highly connected in the government there. He told me not to be concerned about a war, he explained that it wouldn't happen for financial reasons. What he explained was that India was enjoying the biggest boom to their economy had a brand new burgeoning middle class who were working for American, and European companies like Nokea, many banks, and engineering firms. When the swords were being rattled those companies called the two governments and explained that if they didn't stop right then they would pull out their companies from there.

So free market economies stopped a war. The more nations are tied together economically the less chance of war.

Once again it comes down to the two ideologies, one requires people to be dependent on government, the other needs to have people to have something to lose they want to protect. The first needs people weak, the second prosperous.

For me, I choose the second. The more nations who do, or for that matter American States who do, the more freedom, the more liberty, the more prosperity, and the less chance of war.


  1. "Glenn Beck is a moron." Seems somewhat random, what does that have to do with anything? Beck wasn't mentioned anywhere on this blog, I haven't watched Beck in months his time slots and mine don't mix, and while I admire his research team's efforts on exposing the Czars, and am happy that he is teaching history. I have never learned anything on his history lessons, they are almost always things I have already written about. His end of the world paranoia I choose to hold out for more hope than he seems to.
    This post has nothing to do with Beck, just facts on the India and Pakistan conflicts, and theory on what can be.

  2. Who cares, you are the only one talking about him.